Re: AW: SV: focus failure with x11 and Mac OS X 10.5
Re: AW: SV: focus failure with x11 and Mac OS X 10.5
- Subject: Re: AW: SV: focus failure with x11 and Mac OS X 10.5
- From: "Ambrose Li" <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:51:14 -0500
Please excuse my irrelevance again, but maybe I first need to
explain why what I say is irrelevant.
I am irrelevant first and foremost because I am still on Tiger,
and am not personally affected by any of these issues, nor can I
verify anything I write. Second, I am not "speaking for myself".
On 29/11/2007, Andrew J. Hesford <email@hidden> wrote:
> 2. The CPU time for SSH tunneling is just offloaded into extra
> burden on the remote system, which has the responsibility
> of rendering an entire display for users. Since these
> remote systems tend to serve multiple users, this issue is
> compounded.
This is untrue. However you mean by "rendering the entire
display" (whether sending the X commands or acting on the X
commands), the situation is identical as the situation where you
use an ssh tunnel. The remote system still has to send all the
X commands, and the local system still has to act on all the X
commands to do rendering.
The cpu cycles and memory used for ssh tunnelling are extra,
but, as you correctly point out, you also reduce the network
bandwidth. But as to loading on the remote system, if you have
tried running programs over ssh vs over plain X, you need to
agree that the loading is less without ssh.
> 4. The nested server is a big hassle if you want to run
> programs on multiple systems, each of which demands an XDMCP
> connection. What if you want to run 5 applications on 3
> different systems? You've got to wade through 3 windows
> that each keep you one-step removed from the applications
> you want. XDMCP does not scale. This is the reason X11 was
> designed to be network-transparent, to avoid issues like this.
This is a strange way of using xdmcp. Now I understand what you
mean by a "window manager within a window manager" or saying
that running xdmcp causes the remote system to have heavier
load. But this is not true in general nor is this the fault of
xdmcp per se.
> 6. On systems like Gentoo or FreeBSD, you often need to build
> and install extra software for this. The servers are for heavy
> computation... I don't need them rendering things like window
> managers and desktops. If people require an X application, I
> can just install that and the supporting libraries, but leave
> off the server and display manager. Let their computers take
> care of that junk!
>
> XDMCP is a bad idea. Just like manually parsing DISPLAY is
> a bad idea. Applications or systems that require XDMCP are
> fundamentally broken. I know it pisses people off when things
> they need don't work, but this is a time to complain loudly
> to the developer of the application or administrator of the
> system. In the meantime, there are a few workarounds for
> Leopard users.
This is fair. I happen to disagree with this in general, but
within the context I agree with you. In any case, xdmcp not
working properly is a bug that needs to be ultimately fixed.
Since I don't know why an application would "require xdmcp" (I
cannot think of any reason), what I say is useless. But if an
application works with xdmcp and doesn't work without xdmcp,
then it looks like something is done in the user's xsession
which should be moved over to a startup script for the app. On
another hand, if the app works without ssh but doesn't work with
ssh, maybe it's the new trusted vs untrusted forwarding thing...
--
cheers,
-ambrose
Yahoo and Gmail must die. Yes, I use them, but they still must die.
PS: Don't trust everything you read in Wikipedia. (Very Important)
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
X11-users mailing list (email@hidden)
This email sent to email@hidden